I tend toward the opinion that they are illegal, whether it is a R or D doing the killing. At the very least, the secrecy and lack of oversight is very disturbing.

I remember the huge outcry when people were detained, from a declared war zone no less, at Guantanamo without due process. Yet now all those same people seem to have no problem with outright summary execution without due process, and not even in a declared war zone. Partisan politics at it's absolute worst.

Nem Wan:The resolution is limited to the past tense, involving people who were involved in something in the past.

With time, that's getting pretty thin.

Since it extends to organizations and those that assisted those organizations, it rolls along as splinter groups form.

odinsposse:That's US law. Killing people overseas would fall under international law. Which is what the article addresses.

Under the premise that killings outside Afghanistan are outside the 'war zone'. Our AUMF does not designate a section of terrain as a 'war zone', nor does it provide for a specific target. Our 'war zone' is the world. If they found al Qaeda holing up in a farmhouse outside Ottowa, we could bomb the shiat out of it no problem. We may have a political nightmare on our hands, but not a legal one as far as our government's concerned.

James F. Campbell:Mmm. This should be an interesting thread. This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.

And that's the problem isn't it.

I've got a cousin in Pennsylvania that's about as liberal as it gets- pretty darn disgusted with a lot of the current administration, as much as she wanted to support it. Just like I was pretty darn unhappy with "W", as much as I wanted him to be a good president. Funny thing is how much we agree on how things *should* be, despite party alignment (that's quickly eroding for both of us due to extreme jackassery in Washington) and the couple of philosophical differences that we have.

Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.

These people are at war against the United States. They are actively planning attacks against our military and our citizens. These people have no problems with dying or committing suicide for a successful attack. When you are in a war, you kill your enemy.

And yes, even US citizens who participate are open to drone attacks. No one biatched at Lincoln for the confederate troops death even though they were American citizens (Union did not recognize the Confederacy).

StoPPeRmobile:This chicken-shiat, cowardly, remote murdering, is useless and a detriment to the way of life of a supposedly great nation.

Ever since someone invented the javelin so that they could kill people remotely, it's just been a constant move towards more cowardliness. Soldiers today are pussies for using firearms. Real men kill each other with their bare hands - but only in evenly matched engagements.

I don't see the difference between using a drone or a manned aircraft to fire a missile. The only difference between a drone and an F-16 is how much risk the pilot is taking. And that's not a good argument against the use of drones.

I think "Should the CIA and other non-military agencies be operating armed drones?" is a better question.

I would have considerably less of a problem with drone strikes if they were treated in all respects as acts of war (which, frankly, they are: perhaps not the first thing that comes to mind when people think of war, but war nonetheless).

That's not to say that I don't have a problem with acts of war, but the consequences of treating drone strikes as acts of war would, in turn, provide considerable safeguards against the misuse of drones. The transparently self-serving "creative interpretation" of the Obama Administration, which maintains that these are not acts of war, provides no such safeguards.

sprawl15:planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons

The resolution is limited to the past tense, involving people who were involved in something in the past.

With time, that's getting pretty thin.

There is a push to create new authority that doesn't require relevance to 9/11. This is a classic example of mission creep. A power that was an extraordinary response to an extraordinary event is now desired for ordinary use.

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Rent Party:The are illegal when they are outside the bounds of the AUMF. They are legal when the President deems you are a member of a nation, state, or organization that perpetrated or abided the 9/11 attacks and in his estimation, blowing your shiat up would help prevent it from happening again.

Thats the law.

This. Everything is perfectly legal. The headline is asking the wrong question.

Lost Thought 00:Leeds: Obama is the only Nobel Peace Prize recipient who maintains a "kill list."

Let that sink in for a minute...

Leeds: Obama is the only Nobel Peace Prize recipient who maintains a "kill list."

Let that sink in for a minute...

Only because all the Israeli Prime Ministers they awarded it to are dead

Don't forget Yasser Arafat.

John Yoo argued before Congress under Bush that it was A-OK for the president to order that a child's testicles be crushed in front of his parents if it was deemed necessary by the president to extract information from the parents.

It appears as though you have it backwards: When a Democratic President does it, they're perfectly fine, even if they're killing American citizens without a trial. If it was a Republican President doing it, there would be significantly more opposition to it.

Why are you under the impression that being an American citizen means the military cannot kill you if you're fighting for an enemy of the US?

It appears as though you have it backwards: When a Democratic President does it, they're perfectly fine, even if they're killing American citizens without a trial. If it was a Republican President doing it, there would be significantly more opposition to it.